DVOM:diaphoresis: Subprime mortgages. When the government forces banks to give loans to people who cannot afford to pay the money back, it's a bad strategy.

You don't have a clue what the fark caused the problem.

These retards are pretty hysterical.

Banks pushed their people to make these highly profitable subprime loans (even when they knew they were fraudulent) because they had figured out that if you sell these loans to some poor sucker (after you fraudulently turn them into "AAA investments") it doesn't matter if you have a prayer in hell of collecting or not.

Look at what happened to the people inside the banks who stood up against these fraudulent practices:

Nobody twisted these assholes arms. They wanted to make subprime loans because they were incredibly profitable and they figured out how to leave some poor sucker holding the bag with their toxic waste "AAA investments".

The Republican sanctions will be most dire. The warning letter will be sent priority overnight AND require a signature confirmation. Mittens has even considered the idea of underlining a few words in said warning letter.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:The Republican sanctions will be most dire. The warning letter will be sent priority overnight AND require a signature confirmation. Mittens has even considered the idea of underlining a few words in said warning letter.

As opposed to President Obama whose response to Goldman Sachs being called out by the Congressional investigation into the financial crisis for fraud was to hit them up for more donations but not prosecute them?

Felony fraud for creating false mortgage documents to be used in the court system to foreclose on homeowners? That's an easy one.

It happened in all 50 states.

How else do you think it became so common for multiple banks to simultaneously try to foreclose on the same home, or for banks to foreclose on homeowners who never took out a mortgage in the first place, but instead had paid cash for their home?

Good article. Some relevant quotes that it would do most farkers well to hear and understand:

"As always, if working group members uncover evidence of fraud or other illegal conduct, we will pursue such conduct aggressively," Andy said.

This means the reasons nobody is being prosecuted is because there really weren't many crimes committed. The Bastille storming OWS brigade just can't get it through their skulls that you can't put people in jail just because you think they contributed to a crisis. They actually have to have broken the law.

"The financial crisis was so expensive and so many people were injured that one's instinct is to think that there must have been massive wrongdoing from the top on down," she said.

A gentle way of saying that idiots will always try to find a scapegoat on whom to blame their own misfortune, and the ignorant will frequently try to blame things they don't understand (like wall street).

The next step, of course, for such idiots, is to blame government complicity for the lack of prosecution, like many have done in this thread.

To be clear, later investigations and sworn testimony from court cases after this article were written show that banks were literally paying people to create false versions of all these required documents and then fraudulently submitting them to the courts after swearing under oath that they were real.

This is fraud and the courts encountered it again and again, but simply chose to look the other way.

BullBearMS:Debeo Summa Credo: This means the reasons nobody is being prosecuted is because there really weren't many crimes committed.

Horse shiat. Fraud is a felony offense and it was rampant.

It means the rich own the prosecutors, the regulators and both political parties.

Attorney General Eric Holder was a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney before he was appointed to head the Justice Department.

When he is done running the Justice Department, he will go back to being a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney.

Yeah, sure. Conspiracy theories are always legit. No reason at all that an administration who portrays themselves as being for main street over wall street would want to prosecute the near universally hated bankers. I mean, it's not like they have any elections to win or anything.

The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder came to be in charge of the Justice Department after working as a Millionaire Wall Street defense attorney is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy theory.

There was also the fraud with getting AAA ratings on complete piles of financial crap. They did this by threatening to take all of their business to another rating agency and so it was easier to just rubber stamp the document as AAA and not have you boss's boss pissed that you lost a big customer.

You also had Goldman Sachs betting against the financial instruments they were selling. Anybody who uses them now is a fool.

TheGreatGazoo:There was also the fraud with getting AAA ratings on complete piles of financial crap. They did this by threatening to take all of their business to another rating agency and so it was easier to just rubber stamp the document as AAA and not have you boss's boss pissed that you lost a big customer.

You also had Goldman Sachs betting against the financial instruments they were selling. Anybody who uses them now is a fool.

Any small investor is a fool, If you have enough to be a "valued client" they'll let you get a taste I'm sure.

If the prosecutors and the SEC staff cannot make a case in this situation, why do we continue to fund their departments. It should be made clear to them that if they cannot enforce the laws that they are employed to enforce, they have no purpose and their departments in this area will be dismantled. I think their opinions of these cases will suddenly change and the cases will become stronger if they have something to lose and cannot just say it is too tough to do their jobs. It may be a tough case to make, but if you cannot enforce the rules in the most egregious case, what is your value? I think the wall street firms have conspired to make the cases harder to prosecute. They use the SEC to keep each other honest in dealing with each other but try to hinder any attempt by the SEC to protect the shareholder from the misdeeds of the firms.

QUESTION: How do you prosecute someone for doing X, when their defense in court is to show a Youtube video of the Secretary of HUD telling an audience that the administration threatened the defendant(s) that if they didn't do X, they'd be prosecuted by the federal government? Andrew Cuomo is Wall Street's "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.

So many times we've seen the coverup was what got someone in trouble, rather than the original transgression. From Martha Stewart to Richard Nixon.

That's why we should prosecute. At the least, they beat it at trial but you still put some small measure of fear in to the Street, and it serves as some small measure of deterrence. The "Masters of the Universe" wouldn't be comfortable with putting their fate in to the hands of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

I think you'd get more, though: some epic overreach and bad decisions in an attempt to game the trial. That's what these people do: look for ways around the rules and tricks to game a system.

Witness tampering, tampering with evidence, perhaps trying to bribe a juror. All kinds of possibilities. Put some pressure on and see who panics.

AIG, as an insurance company, held a fark ton of equities. When someone wants to short, they need to borrow the stock. A unit of AIG foolishly lent out tons of their portfolio. When AIG got in trouble, JP Morgan used this vulnerability to threaten to strip AIG of assets (the whole story has been laid out by Paul Krugman in "End This Depression Now" and, as I recall, by Matt Taibbi in one of his snarkfests in Rolling Stone). That would hurt all kinds of pension funds and local governments, forcing the government to bail out AIG. And JP Morgan had placed huge bets on the CDOs of mortgages they'd bundled and sold failing, so getting the taxpayers to cover AIG's obligations meant billions would flow through to JPM.

Then there's plain fraud. Selling securities that your own emails are calling a pile of sh*t makes a pretty easy case.

I suspect Obama is afraid of the massive political fallout: socialism, war on capitalism, etc. Much like only Nixon could go to China, only a Republican administration could prosecute Wall Street for such widespread practices.

BullBearMS:As opposed to President Obama whose response to Goldman Sachs being called out by the Congressional investigation into the financial crisis for fraud was to hit them up for more donations but not prosecute them?

A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.

Where in your link is the part about Team Obama hitting them up for more donations

Oh, there isn't. You just made that up.

But I guess "they made unsolicited donations to the Democrats," doesn't sound as good. It might even suggest that the smart money could see no Republican was going to beat Obama - not a single sitting US Senator even tried to run, when was the last time that happened? - and they went with the winning team.

Nah, that would totally mess up the narrative. By fabricating that one little bit of motivation you get a fine "Obama crooked" story.

Congratulations. At only one falsehood, you're well below the usual average among conservatives when fabricating an Obama corruption tale.

nmemkha:The sun is setting on Democracy in America. Its a laughably open secret that our government no longer represents The People and is now for sale to the highest bidder. Elections are between two well groomed candidates who, while appearing to be at odds, are actually beholden to the same interests.

The only two outcomes from this point are either revolution or a be a serf in the new Corporatocracy. I highly doubt despite the tough talk that Americans have the balls to revolt.

YepNothing else to say butYep ,we are screwedIt is painful to look in the politics tab and see people passionate about either party.The illusion is going strong.

BullBearMS:Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The Republican sanctions will be most dire. The warning letter will be sent priority overnight AND require a signature confirmation. Mittens has even considered the idea of underlining a few words in said warning letter.

As opposed to President Obama whose response to Goldman Sachs being called out by the Congressional investigation into the financial crisis for fraud was to hit them up for more donations but not prosecute them?

A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.

Uh oh, you've bad mouthed Obama. You're in for it now.

What's the appropriate response here?

"both sides are bad, vote republican"?

Or maybe "you sound concerned"

Maybe they'll accuse you of being my alt, despite the fact that I argue with you every time this comes up.

Treason is out: whatever they did, it wasn't an act of war, nor did it give aid and comfort to the enemy. In the US, at least, it cannot be used as an arbitrary "the government doesn't like what you did" charge.

Earlier in his Presidency, President Obama himself said that the Wall Streeters had done things that were unethical and immoral but not illegal.

Why are we dragging our feet with these Wall Street reforms? The existing ones didn't stop the shenanigans at JP Morgan. The rest of the regulations that were promised weren't enacted because of supposed uncertainty about how to apply them.

Opeth1429:Earlier in his Presidency, President Obama himself said that the Wall Streeters had done things that were unethical and immoral but not illegal.

Why are we dragging our feet with these Wall Street reforms? The existing ones didn't stop the shenanigans at JP Morgan. The rest of the regulations that were promised weren't enacted because of supposed uncertainty about how to apply them.

Is that an excuse? Could it be that no real reform has been occurred?

The best reform that could happen is to make unionization of workers an easier process. Let workers keep those farkers in check.

They aren't being prosecuted because they didn't do anything illegal (with regard to the 2008 collapse), it's as simple as that.

You can't just retroactively change the law because you're really, really mad at the dicks who worked the system. You just have to try and change the system to make them harder to work (which they will figure out a way to do anyway).

MisterRonbo:BullBearMS: As opposed to President Obama whose response to Goldman Sachs being called out by the Congressional investigation into the financial crisis for fraud was to hit them up for more donations but not prosecute them?

A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.

Where in your link is the part about Team Obama hitting them up for more donations

Oh, there isn't. You just made that up.

But I guess "they made unsolicited donations to the Democrats," doesn't sound as good. It might even suggest that the smart money could see no Republican was going to beat Obama - not a single sitting US Senator even tried to run, when was the last time that happened? - and they went with the winning team.

Nah, that would totally mess up the narrative. By fabricating that one little bit of motivation you get a fine "Obama crooked" story.

Congratulations. At only one falsehood, you're well below the usual average among conservatives when fabricating an Obama corruption tale.

BullBearMS:Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The Republican sanctions will be most dire. The warning letter will be sent priority overnight AND require a signature confirmation. Mittens has even considered the idea of underlining a few words in said warning letter.

As opposed to President Obama whose response to Goldman Sachs being called out by the Congressional investigation into the financial crisis for fraud was to hit them up for more donations but not prosecute them?

A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.

Actually, there's not a contradiction. Barack Obama is still the finest Republican President in 50 years.

Someone needs to tell the SEC, the DOJ, and the White House to look up what "disciplining capital" means. When you have a firm or sector that's out of control and threatening political and/or economic stability, you either act, or you go down with them.

duffblue:MisterRonbo: Congratulations. At only one falsehood, you're well below the usual average among conservatives when fabricating an Obama corruption tale. Got to be hard, given how scandal-free this administration has been.

Then we get to Solyndra. The loan program that the money went out from was started during the Bush administration.

All of the claims that money was steered to Obama's donor and pals have been debunked. Pretty much every Romney claim about Solyndra has been shown to be lies and gross exaggerations

Its rather ironic. Conservatives blather on about understanding free markets and starting a business means taking a risk. Yet they don't graso that if you are loaning money to start-ups, even late stage ones, you will have some make it and some fail. The legislation creating the loan guarantee fund set aside $10 billion to cover potential losses on $28 billion in loans

Solyndra, at a bit over $500 million, represents about 4% of total loans, or about 5% of projected loan failures.

skinink:If you haven't watched it yet, you should really watch "Margin Call" which is now available on Netflix Streaming. It's a great fiction movie: "Follows the key people at an investment bank, over a 24-hour period, during the early stages of the financial crisis (in 2008)." Has a top notch acting lineup and doesn't talk above you when it shows what was happened to start that crisis.

If it follows the key people at an investment bank, over a 24-hour period, during the early stages of the financial crisis, it won't show you what happened to start the crisis. For that, it would have to follow Alan Greenspan, over a 19-year period, from 1987 to 2006.

nmemkha:The sun is setting on Democracy in America. Its a laughably open secret that our government no longer represents The People and is now for sale to the highest bidder. Elections are between two well groomed candidates who, while appearing to be at odds, are actually beholden to the same interests.

The only two outcomes from this point are either revolution or a be a serf in the new Corporatocracy. I highly doubt despite the tough talk that Americans have the balls to revolt.

The people don't care.

The people are distracted with Honey Boo Boo and Newt Gingrich leding the moral crusade to protect the sanctity of marriage from those disgusting homos.

60% of Americans don't know when to stop shoveling crap into their corn-fed pie holes and wonder when the government is going to supply them free insulin after they make sure government keeps it's hands of of medicare.

/looking for EU person to wed and get me out of this willfully ignorant collapsing shiathole

MBA Whore:Sick in every possible way. When I read news like this, I really hope that I am wrong and hell does exist because these people would go straight there.

No they wouldn't necessarily.

According to the big book of fairy tales the only thing you need to do to gain entry to heaven is accept Jesus as your savior. No amount of good deeds will get you in if you don't believe, and no amount of heinous evil will keep you out if you do believe.

And the opposite is true for hell, although it's not referred to as hell, just the lake of fire. If you do not accept Jesus as your savior, God in all his compassion and wisdom will cast you into the lake of fire where you will suffer never ending agony. Just think about how ridiculous that is. God, who is supposed to be all powerful, loving and compassionate is so petty and insecure that he will subject you to pain that never ever ever ever ends just for not believing.

Unlike most alleged Christians I read that book of fairy tales once. I once believed, until I thought about it a bit more and realized that it is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. If that is the word of God then God must have Alzheimers as well as being an insecure narcissist and a heartless sadist.

The final nail in the coffin of my belief was this picture:

What the fark sort of God allows horrors like this to befall children?